On Government

[kamui]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Or did I miss the part where somebody guided a theory on the nature of being across the finish line? Took a picture of the world of forms? Found and surveyed the point of contact between non-physical qualia and the physical brain? Figured out how such contact might work at all? Taped an exclusive, tell-all interview with God the Almighty? Bottled a soul?

Such feats would satisfy you ?

Try Spinoza.
Or Deleuze.

Or maybe the perceived lack of good answers comes from the irrelevance of the problem itself.
[/quote]

1: “Physicalism is a stillborn failure that hasn’t been proved.”

2: “It’s just as stillborn and failed as its alternatives, which haven’t been proved.”

1: “None of this matters.”

Alright then.[/quote]

Is it that unreasonable to think that invoking the current debates on fundamental ontology may be uselessly disruptuve in a thread titled “on government” ?

[smh_23]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Maybe i would not bore that easily if i had any good reason to believe in your honest curiosity.[/quote]

Your opinion of my honesty and curiosity is as uninformed as it is irrelevant to me. If you think I’m no good at any of this and, worse, I’m around here for reasons less noble than your own, then the solution is staring you in the face.

[quote]
I mean, you don’t ask “how do you know ?” and “show me your proof” each and every time someone make an unproven claim. [/quote]

When the claim is about who won the big game last night, no you don’t.

When the claims are about god and non-physical rights and the nature of being, yes you do. You seem to think otherwise. This is a point on which we will continue to disagree: that he to be censured is the guy who doubts the guy who claims to know (and claims to be able to prove) that god and platonic ideals exist. We will disagree on it and, what’s more, I find in it grounds to suggest we simply part ways.

[kamui]

Your opinion of my honesty and curiosity is as uninformed as it is irrelevant to me. If you think I’m no good at any of this and, worse, I’m around here for reasons less noble than your own, then the solution is staring you in the face.

My opinion about your curiosity is indeed quite uninformed. Because you never informed us.
You ask questions and make demands from an neutral position of safety.
We confessed our inability to satisfy those questions and demands. Now we are waiting for you to make a point.

I don’t think you are here for reasons “less noble than my own”.
i simply suppose that you have specific reasons, which may very well be very noble, to take the skeptic/socratic road here. Because that’s usually the case.
And i’m waiting for them to appear.

As long as you don’t do it, the discussion will remain in its current stage of
“rights may no be real physical things and they may not even exists at all”.
And so what ? What are, or should be, the consequences of such a conclusion, “on government” ?

When the claims are about god and non-physical rights and the nature of being, yes you do. You seem to think otherwise. This is a point on which we will continue to disagree: that he to be censured is the guy who doubts the guy who claims to know (and claims to be able to prove) that god and platonic ideals exist. We will disagree on it and, what’s more, I find in it grounds to suggest we simply part ways.

i don’t remember this discussion being about God.
If you’re speaking about the “proof of god” thread, you should take notice of the fact that i didn’t disagreed with your approach in this thread.

[kamui]

“We are all born and bound to play the ‘civil society’ game, whose rules include wonderful things like freedom and equality” = “All humans will participate in the ‘civil society’ game, whose rules include wonderful things like freedom and equality.”

I said that

Freedom, equality, reciprocity, etc may be nothing more than meta-rules of a game we are all, by nature, born and bound to play.

just before i said :

Both concepts are defined by the a priori structures of the game of “being a civil society”.

So, in case it wasn’t already obvious, i was not speaking about the reality of freedom, equality and reciprocity, but about the necessity of their concept.

[quote]
But then there’s your defense. If your defense is legitimate–which it is not–and everybody is actually playing your game even if they don’t know it, don’t want to, don’t know the rules (or, more commonly, don’t follow them even if they know them), and don’t operate within any of the game’s normative boundaries, then I can indeed say, with a perfectly straight face and in the sincerest sincerity, that I made a cup of coffee this morning and it was a great game of basketball.[/quote]

the concept of coffee doesn’t require the concept of basketball. They are totally unrelated.

The concept of a slave does require the concept of freedom.

What is a slave if it’s not a part of society who does include and understand the concept of freedom (and happen to deprive some of its members of this freedom) ?

[smh_23]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Your opinion of my honesty and curiosity is as uninformed as it is irrelevant to me. If you think I’m no good at any of this and, worse, I’m around here for reasons less noble than your own, then the solution is staring you in the face.

My opinion about your curiosity is indeed quite uninformed. Because you never informed us.
You ask questions and make demands from an neutral position of safety.
We confessed our inability to satisfy those questions and demands. Now we are waiting for you to make a point. [/quote]

My point is made: That there is too much certainty in this world (and, emphatically, in this thread). Relatedly, there is not enough doubt. Self-doubt, specifically.

If you are waiting for me to claim that I have the answers to these questions, and then to begin defending them, I advise you to stop waiting now: Do natural rights exist? I don’t know. I don’t.

(Contrary to popular belief, I don’t have all that high of an opinion of my own breadth of knowledge. But I do very much like the fact that I have the ability not to know things. Some people seem constitutionally incapable of it, and, speaking of what effect this conversation has on government, that particular phenomenon has an enormous one. How many people have died on the hungry blade of unwarranted certainty–moral, intellectual, or hybrid?)

When the claims are about god and non-physical rights and the nature of being, yes you do. You seem to think otherwise. This is a point on which we will continue to disagree: that he to be censured is the guy who doubts the guy who claims to know (and claims to be able to prove) that god and platonic ideals exist. We will disagree on it and, what’s more, I find in it grounds to suggest we simply part ways.

i don’t remember this discussion being about God.
If you’re speaking about the “proof of god” thread, you should take notice of the fact that i didn’t disagreed with your approach in this thread.

Conceded. I should have said “god or,” not “god and.” The point, however, is that this conversation is like that one: Grand claims about grand and grandly mysterious things should be met with skepticism, and they should not be accepted as true without good reason to accept them as such. As I said, I don’t ask for evidence when I’m talking to the guy at the gas station about who won the Yankee game the night before. This is somewhat different, though perhaps it isn’t much more important in practice.

[smh_23]

I will respond to your other post later in the day, I am off to a part of New York City where few people will ever play the civil society game.

[pat]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Jackson? I was unaware that this matter had been settled and that a pronouncement of death had become possible and advised. Or did you just take a page out of Pat’s book?[/quote]

Technically, physicalism is not dead.
It’s still-born.
It’s a program which never get past the stage of its declaration of intent.

It requires a total reduction. And it never succeeded to show a single example of even a partial one.

That’s correct which is why I linked to a quantum mechanical paradox. Quantum physics is where metaphysics and Newtonian physics meet. Physicalism cannot be tested because physicalism is essentially Newtonian physics which breaks down on the quantum level.[/quote]

I tend to agree, though this has not been established by any measure. I just want to make sure that it is understood. However, there is some very interesting phenomena that can lead one to that conclusion.

That was that other tact I was invoking to attack physicalism. That the empirical evidence we know about the physical is very different from our sensory input. And there are 2 ways to go about it, but I will pick one and settle on the evidence itself. The evidence, in a extremely brief summary means that matter is reducible to energy which is reducible to information.
I would welcome Dr. Matt’s analysis but unless something very recent came out, this is my understanding of where the science is currently. And this analysis is the result of Black Hole Theory.

Black hole information paradox

Again, if I need to update my information, I will gladly accept the source.

What this leads to then is what does ‘physical’ mean anyway? If we accept the physical as a brute fact then it’s easy to pin anything to it like a voodoo doll. But the question itself is ontological and metaphysical which means we are left with a paradoxical stance.

Thanks for bringing this up SM… It would have been my third defence should this not have turned into yet another personal attack. But hey, it’s amazing what you can learn misreading a couple of internet articles.

[kamui]

My point is made: That there is too much certainty in this world (and, emphatically, in this thread). Relatedly, there is not enough doubt. Self-doubt, specifically.

I can agree with that.

But this point is rather pointless now.
We just admitted that there may be no such thing than a rule, no such thing than a right because we brilliantly demonstrated that “oughts” are ultimately unprovable things.

Now what would be better is not only irrelevant, it’s actually meaningless.
Better compared to what metrics which may not exists ?

[quote]
How many people have died on the hungry blade of unwarranted certainty–moral, intellectual, or hybrid?)[/quote]

Why do you care ?
You just told us that you don’t know that these people have a right to live.

So for now those deaths may or may not matter.
And we already established that we don’t know enough to decide.

The only thing we have established is that their killers had entirely too much intellectual certainty.
But the cost of this conclusion is that we can’t say anymore that they were ethically wrong.

That’s the difference between this topic and the proof of god one.
In “proof of God” we were in the realm of pure reason, where skepticism is fine and sound.
Here we are in the realm of practical reason where skepticism is impossible.
We all think and act under some axiology, and we should stop pretending otherwise.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

You ask questions and make demands from a neutral position of safety.
We confessed our inability to satisfy those questions and demands. Now we are waiting for you to make a point.

[/quote]

For a French guy, you sure know how to put things in English well. It’s easy to stand there like a child and say “Why?” and “How do you know?” rather than take a stance and defend it which is much harder but braver and more meaningful. For you don’t make a point by merely hurting somebody else’s position, you have to take a position and defend it.

I suppose soon you will be accused of buying your doctorate from an on-line Somali University for $29.99. (I don’t know what that is in Euros, sorry).

[kamui]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

You ask questions and make demands from a neutral position of safety.
We confessed our inability to satisfy those questions and demands. Now we are waiting for you to make a point.

[/quote]

For a French guy, you sure know how to put things in English well. It’s easy to stand there like a child and say “Why?” and “How do you know?” rather than take a stance and defend it which is much harder but braver and more meaningful. For you don’t make a point by merely hurting somebody else’s position, you have to take a position and defend it.

I suppose soon you will be accused of buying your doctorate from an on-line Somali University for $29.99. (I don’t know what that is in Euros, sorry).[/quote]

I don’t have a doctorate. I have what i believe to be the french equivalent of a master degree.

And having to write in english is still an issue.
There is many things that i still find hard to clearly and concisely express in english. As a result, i tend to not attempt to express them at all.

If i was really fluent i would be able to better explain what an “a priori structure” can be in a post-kantian context.
And I could try to show how this notion could help us to rethink the concept of nature after the linguistic turn.

But right now, the cost-benefit ratio doesn’t look good.

[smh_23]

[quote]kamui wrote:

My point is made: That there is too much certainty in this world (and, emphatically, in this thread). Relatedly, there is not enough doubt. Self-doubt, specifically.

I can agree with that.

But this point is rather pointless now.
We just admitted that there may be no such thing than a rule, no such thing than a right because we brilliantly demonstrated that “oughts” are ultimately unprovable things.

Now what would be better is not only irrelevant, it’s actually meaningless.
Better compared to what metrics which may not exists ?

How many people have died on the hungry blade of unwarranted certainty–moral, intellectual, or hybrid?)[/quote]

Why do you care ?
You just told us that you don’t know that these people have a right to live.

And you apparently just admitted the same, unless you were using some sort of royal “we” for the purpose of condescension.

More importantly, what I believe and what I know are two different things. As are what I want and what I can prove before god himself. I have said what I believe more than once over the course of this thread, and it does not sound much unlike your own morality.

Most importantly–and here I repeat myself–I am not going to apologize for the fact that Pat took an impossible and fundamentally hubristic position of certainty. If you don’t like my ‘cheap’ victory, take it up with him. Unless I have his password and am posting under his name, I never forced him into any of these corners he spends so much time in. Perhaps I am an ass hole for saying that, but I doubt very much you don’t recognize truth in it.

[kamui]

And you apparently just admitted the same, unless you were using some sort of royal “we” for the purpose of condescension.

Like Wittgenstein, i do think that aesthetical and ethical notions can not be externally and analytically demonstrated.
But like Wittgenstein, i do think that there is some underlying rules in the way(s) we ascribe aesthetical and ethical value. Rules that are conventional-but-not-arbitrary. Rules that, strictly speaking, can’t be told, but can be taught and showed “ingame”.

My “admission” is not fake.
I really think that the correct answer to your “can you prove it ?” question is : “no i can’t”. At least not in a way that would satisfy you.

But in the same time, i don’t think this is the correct question to begin with. Which is what i’m trying to say here.

[quote]
More importantly, what I believe and what I know are two different things. [/quote]

Obviously.
But your unprovable beliefs are just that : unprovable beliefs. And we can’t and shouldn’t have a rational discussion about them.
Now, we are left with “to each their own”, which made the effort to find a common ground (on government) pointless.

[quote]
As are what I want and what I can prove before god himself. I have said what I believe more than once over the course of this thread, and it does not sound much unlike your own morality.[/quote]

Maybe this similarity between our moralities is just an historical accident.
Our irrational beliefs happens to be the same. It’s cool, but it’s as pointless and meaningless as any accident.
Or maybe there is some kind of a priori structure that limit and determine our beliefs and make rights exists in some weird way. Even if it’s just “for us”, and even if it’s just as necessary concepts.

Most importantly–and here I repeat myself–I am not going to apologize for the fact that Pat took an impossible and fundamentally hubristic position of certainty. If you don’t like my ‘cheap’ victory, take it up with him. Unless I have his password and am posting under his name, I never forced him into any of these corners he spends so much time in. Perhaps I am an ass hole for saying that, but I doubt very much you don’t recognize truth in it.

I understand and respect the need to protect us from the risk of fanaticism and theocracy.
But the irony here is that, by making rights a pure matter of personnal belief, you basically admitted that every possible society will ever be some variant of a theocracy, regulated by ultimately unprovable belief and driven by some kind of fanaticism.

And now, i have no reason to believe that your godless theocracy will be better than pat’s godfull one.

[NickViar]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Like Wittgenstein, i do think that aesthetical and ethical notions can not be externally and analytically demonstrated.
But like Wittgenstein, i do think that there is some underlying rules in the way(s) we ascribe aesthetical and ethical value. Rules that are conventional-but-not-arbitrary. Rules that, strictly speaking, can’t be told, but can be taught and showed “ingame”.

My “admission” is not fake.
I really think that the correct answer to your “can you prove it ?” question is : “no i can’t”. At least not in a way that would satisfy you.

But in the same time, i don’t think this is the correct question to begin with. Which is what i’m trying to say here.

Obviously.
But your unprovable beliefs are just that : unprovable beliefs. And we can’t and shouldn’t have a rational discussion about them.
Now, we are left with “to each their own”, which made the effort to find a common ground (on government) pointless.

Maybe this similarity between our moralities is just an historical accident.
Our irrational beliefs happens to be the same. It’s cool, but it’s as pointless and meaningless as any accident.
Or maybe there is some kind of a priori structure that limit and determine our beliefs and make rights exists in some weird way. Even if it’s just “for us”, and even if it’s just as necessary concepts.

I understand and respect the need to protect us from the risk of fanaticism and theocracy.
But the irony here is that, by making rights a pure matter of personnal belief, you basically admitted that every possible society will ever be some variant of a theocracy, regulated by ultimately unprovable belief and driven by some kind of fanaticism.

And now, i have no reason to believe that your godless theocracy will be better than pat’s godfull one.
[/quote]

That’s a far clearer rebuttal to smh than I have ever come up with, despite English apparently not being your first language(just going by what someone else posted-I did not know that). I believe smh’s point in these arguments is simply that force rules the world. I, and probably many others who find themselves in debates with him, believe that IDEAS are more powerful than force-there’s always a reason behind the use of force.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

You ask questions and make demands from a neutral position of safety.
We confessed our inability to satisfy those questions and demands. Now we are waiting for you to make a point.

[/quote]

For a French guy, you sure know how to put things in English well. It’s easy to stand there like a child and say “Why?” and “How do you know?” rather than take a stance and defend it which is much harder but braver and more meaningful. For you don’t make a point by merely hurting somebody else’s position, you have to take a position and defend it.

I suppose soon you will be accused of buying your doctorate from an on-line Somali University for $29.99. (I don’t know what that is in Euros, sorry).[/quote]

I don’t have a doctorate. I have what i believe to be the french equivalent of a master degree.

And having to write in english is still an issue.
There is many things that i still find hard to clearly and concisely express in english. As a result, i tend to not attempt to express them at all.

If i was really fluent i would be able to better explain what an “a priori structure” can be in a post-kantian context.
And I could try to show how this notion could help us to rethink the concept of nature after the linguistic turn.

But right now, the cost-benefit ratio doesn’t look good.

[/quote]

Your english expression is very good. You are able to express complex notions very well. So don’t let anybody put your english down. You have better english than some english only speakers.
How much different is “a priori structure” in a post-kantian context now than 200 years ago? Further developed I can see, changed much I don’t think so.

[pat]

[quote]NickViar wrote:
That’s a far clearer rebuttal to smh than I have ever come up with, despite English apparently not being your first language(just going by what someone else posted-I did not know that). I believe smh’s point in these arguments is simply that force rules the world. I, and probably many others who find themselves in debates with him, believe that IDEAS are more powerful than force-there’s always a reason behind the use of force.[/quote]

Thinking in a different language is an interesting process in itself. Czech was actually my first language I didn’t speak English until I was 5. Sadly you wouldn’t know it now as I still have a 5 yr old’s grasp of the language. But there are words in Czech for which there is no english translation. Or words that can mean many things depending on context.
This is where I think Kamui actually has an advantage in processing information. You have to categorize and process it in your own language and then translate it. It allows you to see groups and associations that may not be readily apparent to a single language speaker.

[smh_23]

[quote]kamui wrote:

And you apparently just admitted the same, unless you were using some sort of royal “we” for the purpose of condescension.

Like Wittgenstein, i do think that aesthetical and ethical notions can not be externally and analytically demonstrated.
But like Wittgenstein, i do think that there is some underlying rules in the way(s) we ascribe aesthetical and ethical value. Rules that are conventional-but-not-arbitrary. Rules that, strictly speaking, can’t be told, but can be taught and showed “ingame”.

My “admission” is not fake.
I really think that the correct answer to your “can you prove it ?” question is : “no i can’t”. At least not in a way that would satisfy you.
[/quote]

I think your last sentence is unwarranted because, contrary to your characterization of me, I have not been playing the nitpicking, insatiable skeptic throughout the course of this thread. I specifically used the question (“on what evidence?”) because I was not asking for a proof, only evidence. None was even attempted except by Beans (and Nick, though he dropped out for a while), and then it turned out that he and I were not really set up in outright disagreement anyway.

Why was I asking for evidence? Because I am a nihilist and I delight in the destruction of people’s hopeful ideals? No. I was asking for evidence because that is how this works. Pat’s wonted declarations of philosophical certainty don’t get to run free without earning it. You continue to imply that the cheapness of my victory is in some way my doing. It is his doing, as it has been in the past.

On to this not being worthy of discussion if we cannot prove it with epistemically unassailable certainty: nonsense. “Reason compels us to adopt this belief…” etc. Or should we stop talking politics around here? Politics are almost always incapable of bearing the burden of objective proof. Look at SM vs. Bismark on welfare, for example. Two competing arguments, each with strengths and weaknesses, but little objective Truth to which to appeal. Should they just give up, then?

Edited

[smh_23]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Like Wittgenstein, i do think that aesthetical and ethical notions can not be externally and analytically demonstrated.
But like Wittgenstein, i do think that there is some underlying rules in the way(s) we ascribe aesthetical and ethical value. Rules that are conventional-but-not-arbitrary. Rules that, strictly speaking, can’t be told, but can be taught and showed “ingame”.

My “admission” is not fake.
I really think that the correct answer to your “can you prove it ?” question is : “no i can’t”. At least not in a way that would satisfy you.

But in the same time, i don’t think this is the correct question to begin with. Which is what i’m trying to say here.

Obviously.
But your unprovable beliefs are just that : unprovable beliefs. And we can’t and shouldn’t have a rational discussion about them.
Now, we are left with “to each their own”, which made the effort to find a common ground (on government) pointless.

Maybe this similarity between our moralities is just an historical accident.
Our irrational beliefs happens to be the same. It’s cool, but it’s as pointless and meaningless as any accident.
Or maybe there is some kind of a priori structure that limit and determine our beliefs and make rights exists in some weird way. Even if it’s just “for us”, and even if it’s just as necessary concepts.

I understand and respect the need to protect us from the risk of fanaticism and theocracy.
But the irony here is that, by making rights a pure matter of personnal belief, you basically admitted that every possible society will ever be some variant of a theocracy, regulated by ultimately unprovable belief and driven by some kind of fanaticism.

And now, i have no reason to believe that your godless theocracy will be better than pat’s godfull one.
[/quote]

That’s a far clearer rebuttal to smh than I have ever come up with, despite English apparently not being your first language(just going by what someone else posted-I did not know that). I believe smh’s point in these arguments is simply that force rules the world. I, and probably many others who find themselves in debates with him, believe that IDEAS are more powerful than force-there’s always a reason behind the use of force.[/quote]

I think you misunderstand my view of the world. That isn’t a criticism of you–I’ve never considered it necessary to lay it out here.

My participation in this argument was simple, and the ridiculous line of reasoning which says I’m somehow to blame for the enormous overreaches of someone I was debating is just that: ridiculous: deserving of ridicule. And then comes the response: “Yeah, I agree, you’re right, but (somehow) the entirely uncontroversial position of skepticism you took here is unfair, and it’s bad bad bad. And why would you care about other people, given your skepticism (wherein I allege myself to share)?”

As for force ruling the world, I don’t know that I believe that one thing “rules the world,” though I doubt you disagree that force is among the contenders. It is, after all, the reason that you live under this system that you hate so much. But force and ideas are not mutually exclusive, and the nature and aim of the former is often or always guided by the latter.

[NickViar]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But force and ideas are not mutually exclusive, and the nature and aim of the former is often or always guided by the latter.[/quote]

I completely agree. Force without ideas is pointless-look at pretty much every revolution in history-nothing was gained by most involved.

[smh_23]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But force and ideas are not mutually exclusive, and the nature and aim of the former is often or always guided by the latter.[/quote]

I completely agree. Force without ideas is pointless-look at pretty much every revolution in history-nothing was gained by most involved.[/quote]

I do have a question: Aren’t you a devout believer? I am surprised that you said “ideas” rather than “God.”

[NickViar]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I do have a question: Aren’t you a devout believer? I am surprised that you said “ideas” rather than “God.”[/quote]

Yes, and why?